Krishna Mundu vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 440 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Krishna Mundu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1319 of 2022
                                ------

Krishna Mundu, aged about 27 years, S/o Late Aachu Mundu, Resident of village-Baridih, P.O. & PS-Saiko, District-Khunti .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.

------

05/Dated: 29.01.2026

I.A. No.13891 of 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section

430(1) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for suspension of sentence dated

05.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. at

Khunti, in connection with Saiko P.S. Case No.04 of 2019

corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No.10 of 2019, whereby and

whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 12 years along with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In

default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to

undergo R.I. for three years.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken two fold grounds by

renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence, first is the

undergone period of custody of about 4 years and second is the

ground of parity, since, the other co-convicts, namely, Motay

Mundu and Dinay Mundu have been directed to be released on

bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated

03.11.2025 and 20.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.822 of

2024 and 1321 of 2022 respectively.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed

the prayer for suspension of sentence by referring the order dated

07.01.2025 passed in I.A. No.13656 of 2024, whereby and

whereunder, the case of the present appellant has been rejected

on consideration of testimony of one or the other witnesses.

4. It has been contended that the period of sentence undergone by

the appellant, cannot be the sole ground for suspension of

sentence.

5. It has further been contended that the ground of parity is also not

applicable in the present case, since, the order upon which,

learned counsel for the appellant is relying upon, there is no

consideration of the order passed by this Court on 07.01.2025 in

I.A. No.13656 of 2024.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the

impugned judgment as also the material available in the trial court

records.

7. It needs to refer herein that this Court has taken into consideration

the same prayer for suspension of sentence in interlocutory

application being I.A. No.13656 of 2024, which was rejected vide

order dated 07.01.2025, for ready reference, the said order is

being quoted as under:-

"04/Dated: 07th January, 2025 I.A. No.13656 of 2024:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2022 and order of sentence dated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS at Khunti in Saiko P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019, corresponding to NDPS Case No. 10 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is a case where without following the mandatory requirement as laid under the statute, the appellant has been convicted. Such argument has been made based upon the fact that the provision regarding the search and seizure has not been followed.

3. Further, the measurement taken said to be not proper and is not based upon the statutory provision.

4. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that therefore it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand, while opposing the prayer for suspension of sentence, has submitted that it is a case where all the procedure has been followed as mandated under the NDPS Act, 1985 i.e., the process at the stage of search and seizure has been followed.

6. Further, the mandatory requirement as provided under Section 52-A particularly sub-Section 3 thereof and the NDPS Rule 22 has also been followed since, after the seizing the contraband to the extent of 5 Kilogram and 250 Grams of Pasti Opium and the same was measured with the kit and thereafter in presence of the Sub Divisional Officer, the seizure memo was prepared on which the signature of the present appellant has been taken.

7. Further, as would appear from the testimony of the Investigating Officer who has been examined as PW-6 that the seized contraband was also placed before the Magistrate before sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report of the FSL has also authenticated the nature of the contraband said to be Opium.

8. Based upon the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the Lower Court Records and the other material exhibits available therein.

10. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument

advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, has gone across the testimony of Investigating Officer, who has been examined as PW-6, wherefrom it is evident that on secret information the contraband to the extent of 5 Kilogram and 250 Grams Pasti Opium has been recovered from the bag which was in the possession of the present appellant along with the other co-convicts.

11. It further appears that a common seizure memo was prepared in which the signature of the appellant has also been taken in presence of the SDPO, a gazetted officer in the rank.

12. The Investigating Officer has also deposed that the measurement has been taken by following the due procedure mandated under the statute with the kit and thereafter it was also placed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate by opening the seal before sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical examination.

The sample has been reported to be positive as would appear from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

13. This Court, therefore, based upon the aforesaid fact that the procedure as provided under the statute since has been followed and the quantity of the contraband, is of the view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.

14. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 13656 of 2024, is hereby, rejected."

8. It is the admitted fact that the order dated 07.01.2025 by which

prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant was rejected,

has not been carried to the Higher Forum.

9. Further, the ground of parity as also the period of sentence

already undergone by the appellant of about four years against

the sentence of 12 years, has been taken by renewing the prayer

for suspension of sentence.

10. We are conscious that the principle of parity is to be made

applicable in the matter of bail/suspension of sentence also, but

while considering the principle of parity which is to be made

applicable, the attributability as has been casted upon or

accusation as levelled against the co-convicts and the accused

person is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of

applying the aforesaid principle of parity, reference in this regard

may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director

Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486

wherein, it has held as under:

"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed in the aforesaid

judgment, i.e., Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate

of Enforcement (supra) that it is axiomatic that the principle of

parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law

enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any

illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any

individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been

passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of

the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same

irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article

14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there

has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of

people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or

justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the

benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.

12. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot

exercise its power in a capricious manner and has to consider the

totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simply

saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient

to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity

has been established. Reference in this regard may be made to

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh

Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6

SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under:

"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :

(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v.

State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside."

26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12- 2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha

Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law."

13. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sagar Vs.

State of UP & Anr., 2025 INSC 1370 has categorically observed

that while utilizing parity as a ground for bail, the same must focus

on the role of the accused and cannot be utilized solely because

another accused person was granted bail in connection with the

same offence, and neither can this ground be claimed as a matter

of right, the relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:

"12. The High Court appears, plainly, to have erroneously granted bail to the accused-respondent on the sole ground of parity which it has misunderstood as a tool of direct application as opposed to parity being focused on the role played by the accused and not the thread of the same offence being the only common factor between the accused persons. On this count alone we can set aside the impugned judgment and order. However, we propose not to do so and proceed to delve further.

14. What flows from the above judgments, which have been referred to, only to the limited extent indicated above, is that the High Courts speak in one voice that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted. That, undoubtedly, is the correct position in law. The word 'parity' is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "equality, especially of pay or position." When weighing an application on parity, it is 'position' that is the clincher. The requirement of 'position' is not met only by involvement in the same offence. Position means what the person whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e., his role etc. There can be different roles played - someone

part of a large group, intending to intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who throws hands at the other side, instigated by such words spoken by another, someone who fired a weapon or swung a machete - parity of these people will be with those who have performed similar acts, and not with someone who was part of the group to intimidate the other by the sheer size of the gathering, with another who attempted to hack away at the opposer's limbs with a weapon."

14. We have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court vide orders dated 03.11.2025 and 20.11.2025

in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.822 of 2024 and 1321 of 2022

respectively, wherein, only on the ground of custody undergone,

the prayer for suspension of sentence has been allowed, for ready

reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order are

being quoted as under:

"Order dated 03.11.2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos.822 of

4. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that one of the co-convicts similarly situated has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. A. (DB) No. 1316 of 2022. It has further been submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for total period of 4 years 6 months.

5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State though has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant but has not disputed the period of custody undergone by the appellant.

6. Regard being had to the above, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Khunti in N.D.P.S. Case No. 10 of 2019.

7. The aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of."

"Order dated 20.11.2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 1321 of 2022

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has completed almost 4 years in custody. It has been submitted that one of the co- convicts similarly situated has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1316 of 2022.

Learned A.P.P. though has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant but does not dispute the aforesaid fact.

Regard being had to the above, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Khunti in NDPS Case No. 10/2019.

I.A. stands disposed of."

15. It further appears from the aforesaid orders that there is no

consideration of the order passed by this Court way back on

07.01.2025 passed in I.A. No.13656 of 2024 by which the prayer

for suspension of sentence of the present appellant has been

rejected.

16. This Court has already considered the culpability of the present

appellant which has attained its finality and if on consideration of

the aforesaid fact, the order would have been passed by the

Coordinate Bench, then, certainly, the principle of parity would

have been made applicable depending upon the attributability

said to be committed by one or the other co-convicts.

17. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the order has already

been passed on consideration of the testimony of one or the other

witnesses, while rejecting the prayer for suspension of sentence

taking into consideration the quantity of contraband to the extent

of 5 Kilogram and 250 grams of Pasti Opium, which has been

recovered from the bag which was in the possession of the

present appellant along with the other co-convicts.

18. As such, applying the principle of parity herein, this Court is of

the view that no benefit is to be extended in favour of the present

appellant on the ground that other co-convicts have been directed

to be released on bail, since, no surrounding facts and the

attributability committed by one or the other appellants, have been

taken into consideration by the Coordinate Bench.

19. So far as the issue of sentence already undergone by the

appellant is concerned, the same cannot be the sole ground for

suspension of sentence, rather, the balance is to be maintained in

order to maintain the rule of law that too in the nature of crime

which is related to the contraband.

20. Further, it is the settled position of law that the period of

custody cannot be the sole ground for suspension of sentence,

rather, the nature of crime as has been found to be proved against

one or the other, the appellant herein, is to be taken into

consideration.

21. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhotelal

Yadav versus state of Jharkhand & Anr. [CRIMINAL APPEAL

NO.4804/2025 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15688/2025]

has observed that even in cases where the sentence is for a fixed

term, there is a caveat that if there are exceptional circumstances,

then the Court may decline to suspend the sentence and what

could be those exceptional circumstances is not something

exhaustive. It is for the Court concerned to look into those

exceptional circumstances as may be pointed out by the State.

22. Therefore, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this

Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for suspension of

sentence of the present appellant.

23. Accordingly, I.A. No.13891of 2025 stands dismissed.

24. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not

prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its

consideration.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai J.)

29.01.2026 Rohit/-